Transparency by default! Errm.
Where you gone?
These things are, in my experience, massively overblown.
Imagine youâre the evil Board of Revling, intent on driving you out of business. You cackle as your latest act of corporate esionage delivers you a precise user number⌠What do you then use it for? How do you achieve competitive advantage?
The same goes for roadmaps and a whole load of things. If youâre confident in your product and trajectory it should change nothing. You make the climate, not respond to the weather.
The calculus here is the benefit of user engagement against the marginal (if any) harm of competitors having the information and the extra (?) publicity generated by a surprise press release. But again, how much more effective would the latter be against one that engaged users know is coming? Marginal, I suspect.
Where you gone?
tbh there wasnât an announcement soo I assume I was wrong
Might still be today
Think I put 11/2 around 13:45
Bingo. Sharing ideas/roadmaps/plans helps you build trust with users and gives them consistent clarity on the direction of travel. It absolutely does not help your competitors in any way, because itâs not the ideas themselves, itâs the execution. Virtually nobody is building things that have never existed, and no two companies are ever likely to be prioritising the same things at the same time.
This is pertinent for me right now as I try and make Twitter a more transparent company in my role.
Must have by now
Surely
monzo-dot-com currently says not yet
Ah well, it canât be then. Definitely not
Monzo should have a counter on their front page. That would be cool.
I think the problem here is on the quantum level, Monzo are clearly worried about the observer effect.
âWhen under observation, customers are being âforcedâ to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the apparent behaviour of the customersâ
Itâs clear, the issue is that by seeing the exact number of customers we are forcing those customers to behave in a certain way, to go down a specific path, whereas if we have a broad unobserved number like 5 million then customers can do whatever the hell they want.
Now thatâs true financial freedom.
Quantum transparency. If only Iâd known.
@AlanDoe is the âmore than 5 millionâ a live figure? Will it tick over to âmore than 6 millionâ automatically?
Looking at the source code itâs just a static text element now.
Will need updating manually.
The API being taken offline was the biggest tell to me that itâll just be manual from now on and when theyâre ready to share/update.
Itâs possible we may not find out when they hit 6 million at all.
Also it may be with the comments about different types of customers meaning that they donât think the number is accurate. It may be the number has reduced using the new methodology so we are not comparing apples with apples with our expectations.
No disrespect to Alan (whoâs just the messenger here) but i donât really understand the current website copy given his justification. If it about clarity, then the âmore than 5 millionâ figure still has all the perceived problems over definition - itâs just not live.
Itâs totally down to Monzo to publish or not publish, but Iâd advise them to own it and be honest about why theyâre doing it.
Itâs why I think the messaging being portrayed to us is rather deceitful, if not an outright lie. I donât think thereâs any honesty to the proclaimed intention.
Itâs clear they wanted to hide the exact figure, but I think they lied to us here about why theyâre hiding it. I guess it looks better to spin it in a good way than to tell us theyâre deciding to act in contradiction to their core values as a company. Itâs the same sort of bad faith interaction I recall from their handling of the black culture icon poll. This to me suggests the problem lies with leadership at the community management level because someone there thinks itâs acceptable to take us for fools. I think itâs that thatâs irked us more than the actual reigning in of transparency.